Quote:
Originally Posted by
tonyg
Placing restrictions on what they can choose without meeting your arbritrary conditions is a restriction.
Quote:
Every time anyone has dared to voice a different opinion you've told them that they have to explain the reasons behind their decision or they shouldn't post.
Quote:
You yourself have already posted a message stating that all four options are stupid. So if you can't justify your favorite, why should anyone else have to justify theirs?
It's nice to know what you are choosing though. That's why I asked for it. No one is doing it, though, so whatever.
Quote:
It's a debate that your forced. The only way anyone can choose something other than 1 is to debate you.
If you click on Option 2 through 5, I do not come into your house and start yelling at you. In fact, aside from you, I haven't really argued with anyone else.
Quote:
And no, you don't need to know how I use things in my game, any more that I need to know how you use things in your games to come to a conclusion about CODA.
ô_o if you're making a meta-decision about the effectiveness of mechanics in play in a larger scale (i.e. when designing a game someone other than you will play), yes, you do. And in order for me to understand what you mean when you say "X takes a long-ass time to kill" I at least want some sort of anecdotal example of a time when that happened.
...ol?
Quote:
No, you actual initial statesmen along these lines was:
This is what i said, bold added for emphasis:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Tatterdemalion King
There are significant problems all around. I'm not saying everyone should abandon their efforts; I just think that it's inevitable that our consensus will be one or two people each working on their own Option 3 or 4. The truth is, we're not coming from the same places, and we're not currently on the road to the same places, and unless we are willing to draft someone as Autocratic Project Head (or magically develop some Groupthink), I don't think we'll have a cohesive product from everyone's efforts.
That might be bad to some people. I, for one, will probably soldier on with CODA-based notes and continuing to write for BTFF. Maybe I'll put together a 64-page Option 4 book.
There.
Quote:
Then you appointed yourself developer and editor and, apparently, chief authority.
And you found nothing humourous about the fundamental powerlessness of my appointment?
Quote:
Because if people aren't working together on the game, then it isn't our game. Its just something someone makes and plays. That doesn't make it a game "we" make that is "done by us". It makes it someone's pet project.
What's the difference? No one's paying us to do this. It's the internet, dammit! Virtually everything on here is a pet project!
Quote:
And because the whole point of doing this is the first place was for us to have a living breathing Trek game that would have new material added to it. It is is just one guy's project, that's not going to happen. If it was something that we all supported then it might have a chance of being that game.
And having two, or five, or a dozen different versions of Trek games doesn't prevent you from adding new material to them, or from playing them.
Quote:
Otherwise, there is no point in doing it. We all have at least one Star Trek RPG already, and most of us have two or three perfectly serviceable games already, and a half dozen easily adaptable games.
Which were options 1, meta-1 and 4, I believe. And you know what? It's not too hard to convert an adventure from one system to another.
Quote:
The initial point was for us to have a Trek RPG.
Who's us? Me? You? "The community?" 'Cause I already have three. I'm not sure what owning a new one will do.
Quote:
If you go off an write it on you own, it won't be that game.
Unless everyone else looks at it and says "Hey, that's cool, I think I'll play that." It becomes your game, regardles of who wrote it, the moment you pick up a die.
Quote:
Considering how you've dealt with any differences of opinion, I don't think your vision of how the game should be written is going to be anything other than you telling everyone what they should do and how they should play.
By... arguing? Is that offensive or something?
Quote:
We? Why do you continually act as if you are speaking for everyone else?
It was the royal we. Like that "us" you mentioned. 'Cause no one else has really said anything. It's just you and me arguing, at this point.
Quote:
I have stated more than once that I am willing to help in a group project. You have repeatly attempted to take control and force this down the path of a CODA rewrite,
There is no group project yet. If you want a group project, why don't you start one somewhere concrete?
Quote:
There is nothing plural about your actions.
I am not a committee.
Quote:
It is not like there is a majority nodding along saying that that is what they want. You are just forcing your own choices down everybody's throat and just won't tolerate dissension in the ranks.
It's the internet, dammit. How the hell am I forcing you to do anything? I am arguing with you, which is not stopping you, cannot stop you, or anyone on this board, or anyone in cooperation, from writing a whole new Trek RPG. I even started a damn thread for you to talk about it. And I've started like three spinoff threads so we could argue there instead of here, but you seem to hold on to the idea that my saying anything on these boards is preventing you from writing "Our Trek RPG." So I think it's stupid! So what? So I point out more problems! So what? Nothing I've done here prevents you from opening a text file and writing the words "Trek RPG outline."
...
So to close on this pointless squabbling, the next question is thus:
What part of the Trek RPG do you want to work on?
...
EDIT: yes, I know this is all bullshit that got out of hand. I'm not sure what tonyg didn't understand about my position, but it doesn't matter now, i'm just sorry it happened. I'm out of this thread.
